Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201232 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104887 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF??? Are we playing 20 Questions now?
A proposed hypothesis is a guess, we think, maybey, a suggestion, could be, etc etc no matter if you like it or not.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104888 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF??? Are we playing 20 Questions now?
ooh, ooh, ooh....me first!

question one: Is Replaytime a vegetable?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104889 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going off the rails. While it's probably true that there are a few scientists who personally does not want god to exist, science as a discipline, doesn't give a crap.
There is evidence in science. There is none in religion. I'm surprised you overlook that obvious fact.
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?

Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104890 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. But it's not evidence that life's creation was due to the necessary intervention of intelligence.
<quoted text>
I don't have to provide that since that's not our claim.
You know this as I've explained this several times over now.
And that's just today.
<quoted text>
So you claim, however you have not been able to address it with a single rational argument. The fact is that intelligence is not the primary factor. And in fact that intelligence is not detected in any way shape or form for this to occur (though you still have the opportunity to present evidence otherwise). And when you inevitably and helpfully point out the birds and the bees to me, I will then point out that there are other forms of life for which intelligence isn't even needed in order to reproduce. Ergo what we have is naturally occurring chemical processes producing other naturally occurring chemical processes, which we have arbitrarily decided to term "life".
Gawd you are so dumb! you don't even know what abiogenesis means and like the sucking bone berate others as to it's meaning!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104891 Nov 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The mysteriousness of life cannot be answered by a single man or animal, but the will of life itself to carry on and thrive.
Is a force to recon with. Did you ever consider that life was created by the sheer will of this universe to understand everything that it is? The universe created us so that it could see and have understanding. Now that is truly something that escapes you.
Were going off the rails in a crazy train!
What the hell is that? the Frank Zappa theory of the universe?
The universe created us? ha,ha,ha,ha. Chesterton was right ,youy people will believe in anything

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104892 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter if you like it or not a hypothesis is a suggestion, an assumption, a guess based off of what they think they know.
Let me ask a serious question for a moment...

SO F**KING WHAT???

Do you actually think quibbling over terminology changes anything? You're starting to sound like KAB the Word Weasel.

If you want to reduce all that science has accomplished to guesses, have at it. It changes nothing. But remember that the next time you get on an airplane that someone guessed it will fly. Or the next medication that someone guessed it would cure you.

I *guess* that's when you'll change you tune.

Modern science has accomplished amazing thing in the last few hundred year while the religious has made no progress in 5,000.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104893 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't have a point. Since abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, NOT a theory and NOT a fact, and we have NOT claimed otherwise, you and your buddies have been engaged with a straw-man. As usual.
What WE have is a hypothesis. You guys don't even have that. Hence why you pretend it's a battle of beliefs. Quite clearly it isn't.
Props!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104894 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much they way it is always played here. One can either learn to play the same way or not play at all.
You can try being straightforward and honest. Just a suggestion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104895 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A proposed hypothesis is a guess, we think, maybey, a suggestion, could be, etc etc no matter if you like it or not.
Blah, blah, blah.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104896 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?
Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.
Go look for it then.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104897 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawd you are so dumb! you don't even know what abiogenesis means and like the sucking bone berate others as to it's meaning!
Your ad-homs are inadequate responses to my posts.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104898 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?
Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.
Your stupid is showing. Any number of scientists throughout history have searched for evidence of a god. No luck.

Do you need a list of them or can you Google for yourself.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104899 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
1 - No, abiogenesis is the observation that life came from non-life. Whether that happened naturally, by aliens, Godmagic, or some unknown other alternative is yet to be determined.
2 - No, since both the Earth and the universe is finite there is no reason to assume there was always life.
3 - No potential pathways have been explored because no-one has come up with a single potential pathway. Ever.
4 - Approximately 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.
5 - The "God" concept is non-falsifiable and therefore non-falsifiable. Just because there is an absence of evidence of the Cosmic Sheep that farted the universe into existence does not mean it does not exist. But until anyone can make either of these concepts amenable to scientific investigation they make zero useful scientific predictions, making them non-relevant to practicality.
Lie #1 one from Dud

Abiogenesis is the theory that life occurred on it's own! no God, no aliens, just through natural processes.
Now Dud is trying to hijack God to rescue his failed abiogenesis theory, because he's stupid
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104900 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much they way it is always played here. One can either learn to play the same way or not play at all.
Which is why I don't bother and usually get right to the nitty gritty of the problem at hand. This is why fundies get both barrels. Dishonesty is a requirement for their modus operandi.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104901 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try being straightforward and honest. Just a suggestion.
It seems that Replay is not interested. He empathises too much with the fundies. No reason not to treat him like one then.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104902 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie #1 one from Dud
Abiogenesis is the theory that life occurred on it's own! no God, no aliens, just through natural processes.
Now Dud is trying to hijack God to rescue his failed abiogenesis theory, because he's stupid
Of the two of us I have not lied. I have provided precise definitions, multiple options, correctly applied scientific terminology while you have spent your time avoiding the content of our posts, making bad jokes and beating up straw-men, while placing your own limits on the Almighty in the process.

Stop blaming others for your own shortcomings.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#104903 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many things you should take into consideration but you usually don't bother.
That isn't true. We have had many great discussions about posts I have made on threads he doesn't even go to. I consider his comments on such posts not only enlightening, but down right remarkable.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104904 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask a serious question for a moment...
SO F**KING WHAT???
Do you actually think quibbling over terminology changes anything? You're starting to sound like KAB the Word Weasel.
If you want to reduce all that science has accomplished to guesses, have at it. It changes nothing. But remember that the next time you get on an airplane that someone guessed it will fly. Or the next medication that someone guessed it would cure you.
I *guess* that's when you'll change you tune.
Modern science has accomplished amazing thing in the last few hundred year while the religious has made no progress in 5,000.
I never said it changed a FCKING THING!!! To many think it is more than a guess or assumption. So I keep shoving it up their @SS until they get it.

Btw. An airplane and a medication. Stupid comparisons to guessing abiogenesis. JMO

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104905 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.
That was being straightforward and honest. You just prove it is pointless.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104906 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?
Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.
Who says science hasn't looked for evidence of God? If you're looking for benefit of the doubt, the trial ended over 250 years ago. Maybe you've heard of The Enlightenment? All that's left now are the creation "scientists" blogs, fundies tying logic macrame and endless appeals to restore insanity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min dark memories 194,254
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 9 min ImFree2Choose 35,542
News Woman uses dummy passenger with briefcase in ca... 10 min wichita-rick 7
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 17 min Northbound 8,521
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 22 min KNIGHT DeVINE 18,412
A six word game (Dec '08) 41 min ImFree2Choose 19,464
True False Game (Jun '11) 58 min Uncle Enzo 12,553
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 5 hr pending wtf 160
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 5 hr Enzo49 7,814
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 6 hr President Trump 63
More from around the web